When a team can’t be vulnerable, they manipulate instead

Many leaders have mixed feelings about inviting more vulnerability on their teams.  But when a team can’t be vulnerable, they manipulate instead.

“Manipulate” is a word that gets a strong reaction from most people.  But when we consider the definition – to control or influence someone – it’s often not a devious behavior, but a very common and understandable one.  Especially at work.  And especially when people don’t feel completely safe.  

For example, when’s the last time you saw (or did) one of these behaviors?

• used certain words to sound smart or “in”

• waited for the “meeting after the meeting” to be fully honest

• refrained from asking a question because of how it might make you look

Those are fundamentally protective behaviors that we’re often conditioned to perform.  Research suggests that teams with more gender and racial diversity are even more prone to exhibit them, because there may be less safety, more self-consciousness, and greater need to self-protect.  

So instead of judging “manipulation”, can we see it as the inevitable result of invulnerability?  When we don’t feel like we can be vulnerable, we’ll always end up in some form of performance or manipulation.  Vulnerability is “the state of being exposed”, and the less safety people feel, the less risk they will take. I think we all want to ask our real questions, speak up in the meeting (not after), and not have to show everyone how smart or “in” we are.  But we need to know it’s safe, and that only comes from seeing it happen without consequence. 

I think that presents an opportunity for any person on a team that already feels a greater sense of safety - whether that’s through positional authority, seniority, social standing, race, gender, etc. - to take more risks and put ourselves out there.  And vulnerability begets more vulnerability, because no one actually wants to manipulate. Most people will give those behaviors up when they see the chance to do it safely.